OMG - the top four (4!) threads here are now about Jody Wilson-Raybould.

Why couldn't this be talked about in one of the other existing three threads about her?

And it's a bit rich for the NDP to criticize Trudeau for calling her "Jody" when Mulcair spent most of the last election campaign calling Trudeau "Justin" in a deliberately condescending manner. Pot. Kettle. Black.

And it's a bit rich for the NDP to criticize Trudeau for calling her "Jody" when Mulcair spent most of the last election campaign calling Trudeau "Justin" in a deliberately condescending manner. Pot. Kettle. Black.

This is what I'm reading on social media about the whole "first name" issue. There seemed to be a consensus that if a person has White privilege, then they cannot claim any sort of name-calling because their privilege supersedes any name calling they might receive.

So while it is sexist to call Jody Wilson-Raybould by her first name, the same standards don't apply to Trudeau because he has White privilege.

This is not my opinion, I'm just telling you what I'm reading on social media about the whole "first name" issue.

Considering the tantrum that the Liberals pulled when Justin Trudeau was called Justin, this is a fair criticism, they're not living up to the standards they set. They consider calling someone by their first name disrespectful in a professional setting (which it is), then they should live up to that and call her by her last name or full name. Also considering how calling women in a professional context by their first name is a widespread thing that is meant to belittle them, its especially disrespectful.

Also, Mulcair and Harper calling Justin Trudeau "Justin" was fair during the election. "Justin" was the brand Trudeau chose during his leadership race. Just google "Justin Trudeau leadership race" all the images that come up have placards and banners that say "Justin" and not "Trudeau".

Even when they were on good terms, I doubt that familiarity went both ways (did she ever call him "Justin" in public, and not "the prime minister?). Using "Jody" in a press conference where he referred to "the [new] justice minister" and not "David" certainly seems condescending to me, and I'm someone who trips over conversational land mines like that with some regularity. (A while back, in a professional conversation, I used "tu" to someone [a man] and got "vous" back. The latter isn't as common in Québec as it is in France, and of course the distinction doesn't exist at all in English, but I was still embarrassed.)

That said, the distinction between parties doing it to each others' leaders and a leader doing it to someone in his caucus would seem to me to be that in an election period, the leaders generally aren't even pretending to respect each other – remember Gilles Duceppe asking whether "Tom" talked to "Thomas" during the 2015 French debate.

I realize that the National Post is not the most reliable source, but I think the first point can be easily verified.

At his Tuesday press conference, Trudeau repeatedly referred to Wilson-Raybould as “Jody” and Harjit Sajjan, who takes over from her at Veterans Affairs, as “Minsiter Sajjan.” [sic]To some, this smacked at worst deliberate sexism, at best of accidental sexism. To many others, this parsing will seem like a petty reach. (He couldn’t very well call her “Minister Wilson-Raybould,” could he?) But Trudeau can hardly complain. His party banged on forever about how disrespectful it was for the Conservatives to call him Justin.

I wonder what the blowback will be to that cartoon. Yes, it is "hard-hitting" but also evokes both violence against women and Native-bashing.

I think evoking violence against women or First Nations might be justifiable if there were reason to think that Trudeau's actions in all this were motivated by misogyny or racism. But I am not yet convinced that he's behaving any differently than he would if it were a white male in the same position and situation as Ms. Wilson-Raybould.

Which is not to say I like what Trudeau is doing, just that he does seem to be following the usual playbook, cynical though it may be, for how to handle situations such as this one.

I wonder what the blowback will be to that cartoon. Yes, it is "hard-hitting" but also evokes both violence against women and Native-bashing.

Indeed it does and this government like all Canadian governments before Trudeau's beats and murders indigenous women. He made his first media hit beating up a native man so the cartoon is very effective at mocking Justin.

I believe it was originally meant for private individuals. A one size fit all solution for legal issues from criminal, family, real estate etc etc law. It shouldn’t apply in the case for governments, provincial and federal.

An argument's been made that with his public statements, Trudeau's already waived it. I can't evaluate the strength of that argument, but since JWR hired a former Supreme Court justice to clarify the matter, we'll know the answer sooner or later.

The problem I have with this confidentiality at the government level is because the government institution isn’t private, it’s public.

So really in a way, a measure to protect privacy, shouldn’t apply where the public’s interests (the people of Canada) should be given priority.

Sounds like a scam by politicians to horde more abusive privileges.

Justin is just another dictatorship.

All cabinet ministers take oaths of office that bind them to confidentiality over all cabinet matters so its not like there is only one layer to her obligations. She must be very careful and selective over what she does. I found this little piece about the lawyers compelling cabinet documents so it can be done in certain circumstances.

The ruling means a group of Vancouver-based lawyers with the federal Justice Department will be able to use some cabinet documents in their breach of contract suit. The lawyers, whose annual salaries range from about $70,000 to $101,000, claim Ottawa was wrong to pay their counterparts in Toronto an average of $14,000 more per year for the past decade.